ATRICURE INC: Continues to Defend "Levine" Suit in New York-----------------------------------------------------------AtriCure, Inc., continues to defend a purported securities class action captioned Levine v. AtriCure, Inc., Case No. 06 CV 14324, according to the company's March 30, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The company and certain of its current and former officers were named as defendants in a purported securities class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws and seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock during the period from the company's initial public offering in August 2005 through Feb. 16, 2006.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This motion was denied in September 2007, and a motion for reconsideration of that denial was denied in January 2009.

AtriCure, Inc. -- http://www.atricure.com/-- is a medical device company that develops, manufactures and sells cardiac surgical ablation systems designed to create precise lesions, or scars, in cardiac, or heart, tissue. The company's primary product line, which accounts for a majority of its revenues, is the AtriCure Isolator system. AtriCure's Isolator system consists primarily of a compact power generator known as an ablation and sensing unit (ASU), a switchbox unit (ASB), which allows physicians to toggle between multiple products and multiple configurations of its Isolator clamps, including its Isolator Synergy clamps. AtriCure also sells a multifunctional bipolar pen, or multifunctional pen, which is often used by physicians in combination with its Isolator system to ablate cardiac tissue and for temporary pacing, sensing, stimulating and recording during the evaluation of cardiac arrhythmias. In 2008, the company received FDA approval for its EXCLUDE clinical trial.

ATRICURE INC: Defends Securities Violations Suit in Ohio--------------------------------------------------------AtriCure, Inc., continues to defend a putative class action lawsuit entitled In re AtriCure, Inc. Securities Litigation, according to the company's March 30, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Dec. 12, 2008, the company and certain of its current executive officers were named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division.

The plaintiffs allege violations of Sections10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seek unspecified damages against AtriCure, Inc. and certain of its current executive officers. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements that failed to disclose that the company improperly promoted certain products to physicians and caused the filing of false claims for reimbursement. The class period alleged ran from May 10, 2007 through Oct. 31, 2008.

In July 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss and, in September 2009, the plaintiffs filed their memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss to which the company responded on Nov. 9, 2009.

On March 29, 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part the company's motion to dismiss and, in particular, dismissed the claim that the company caused the filing of false claims for reimbursement.

AtriCure, Inc. -- http://www.atricure.com/-- is a medical device company that develops, manufactures and sells cardiac surgical ablation systems designed to create precise lesions, or scars, in cardiac, or heart, tissue. The company's primary product line, which accounts for a majority of its revenues, is the AtriCure Isolator system. AtriCure's Isolator system consists primarily of a compact power generator known as an ablation and sensing unit (ASU), a switchbox unit (ASB), which allows physicians to toggle between multiple products and multiple configurations of its Isolator clamps, including its Isolator Synergy clamps. AtriCure also sells a multifunctional bipolar pen, or multifunctional pen, which is often used by physicians in combination with its Isolator system to ablate cardiac tissue and for temporary pacing, sensing, stimulating and recording during the evaluation of cardiac arrhythmias. In 2008, the company received FDA approval for its EXCLUDE clinical trial.

ATRINSIC INC: Settlement in "Allen" Suit Gets Final Approval------------------------------------------------------------The settlement in the matter Allen v. Atrinsic, Inc. f/k/a New Motion, Inc., has received final approval from the court, according to Atrinsic, Inc.'s March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On March 10, 2010, and subsequent to its fiscal year-end, Atrinsic received final approval of its settlement to its Class Action proceeding in the State of California on Allen v. Atrinsic, Inc. f/k/a New Motion, Inc., pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The settlement covers all of the company's mobile products, web sites and advertizing practices through December 2009.

All costs of the settlement and defense were accrued for in 2008.

Atrinsic, Inc. -- http://www.atrinsic.com/-- formerly known as New Motion, Inc., is a digital advertising and marketing services company in the United States. Atrinsic is organized as a single segment with two principal offerings: Transactional services and Subscription services.

AUTO REPAIR: Accused in Wash. of Deceptive Business Practices-------------------------------------------------------------Courthouse News Service reports that Auto Repair Warranty sold worthless service contracts for used cars at $1,000 a pop, a class claims in Seattle Federal Court.

BEAR LAKE: Class Action Plaintiffs Ink Settlement with Mr. Boily----------------------------------------------------------------As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Apr. 8, 2010, Bear Lake Gold Ltd. reached an agreement in principle to settle the class action commenced in Ontario against it, its directors and certain of its current and former officers.

This week, Bear Lake Gold Ltd. confirmed that an agreement in principle has also been reached with Mr. Bernard Boily, the Company's former Vice President Exploration.

The agreement in principle remains subject to final settlement documentation and court approval. The proposed settlement does not and will not constitute any admission of liability by the Company or its officers, directors or employees.

Earlier coverage of the litigation appeared in the Class ActionReporter on Aug. 27 and 31, 2009.

BIG LOTS: Settles Louisiana Complaint for $4 Million----------------------------------------------------Big Lots, Inc., has settled the complaint pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for $4 million, according to the company's March 30, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 30, 2010.

In November 2004, a civil collective action complaint was filed against the company alleging that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store managers as exempt employees.

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and all other individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaidovertime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 5, 2005, the District Court in Louisiana issued an order conditionally certifying a class of all then-current and former assistant store managers who have worked for the company since Nov. 23, 2001.

As a result of that order, notice of the lawsuit was sent to approximately 5,500 individuals who had the right to opt-in tothe Louisiana matter.

Approximately 1,100 individuals opted to join the Louisiana matter.

The company filed a motion to decertify the class and the motion was denied on Aug. 24, 2007.

The trial began on May 7, 2008 and concluded on May 15, 2008.

On June 20, 2008, the District Court in Louisiana issued an order decertifying the action and dismissed, without prejudice, the claims of the opt-in plaintiffs.

After this ruling, four plaintiffs remained before the District Court in Louisiana.

On Jan. 26, 2009, three of the plaintiffs presented their respective cases before the District Court in Louisiana.

Since then, the claims of one of the plaintiffs in the January 2009 action and the fourth plaintiff (who did not participate in the January 2009 action) were dismissed with prejudice.

On April 2, 2009, the District Court in Louisiana awarded the two remaining plaintiffs an aggregate amount of approximately$100,000 plus attorneys' fees and costs, which, on June 25, 2009, were determined to be $400,000.

The company appealed both of these decisions.

Subsequent to the District Court in Louisiana's April 2, 2009 decision, approximately 172 of the opt-in plaintiffs filedindividual actions in the District Court in Louisiana.

On Aug. 13, 2009, the company filed a writ of mandamus challenging the District Court in Louisiana's jurisdiction tohear these cases.

This writ was denied on Oct. 20, 2009.

Since then, the claims of one of the plaintiffs in the January 2009 action and the fourth plaintiff (who did not participate On Jan. 12, 2010, the Louisiana matter was settled for $4.0 million.

BIG LOTS: Defends FLSA Violations Suit in New York--------------------------------------------------Big Lots, Inc., continues to defend a civil collective action complaint alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the company's March 30, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 30, 2010.

In April 2009, a civil collective action complaint was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the WesternDistrict of New York, alleging that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store managers as exempt employees.

In addition, the plaintiff seeks class action treatment under New York law relating to those assistant store managers working in the State of New York.

The plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of himself and all other individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaidovertime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On Jan. 21, 2010, a stipulation was filed and Order rendered limiting this action to current and former assistant store managers working in our New York stores.

BIG LOTS: Plaintiffs Appeal Class Certification Denial------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Big Lots, Inc., are appealing the ruling of the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County denying class certification in the case, according to the company's March 30, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 30, 2010.

In September 2006, a class action complaint was filed against the company alleging that the company violated certain California wage and hour laws by misclassifying California store managers as exempt employees.

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other individuals who are similarly situated, damages for alleged unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, wages not paid upon termination, improper wage statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal periods, reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused vacation time, and attorneys' fees and costs.

BLUE CROSS: E.D. Mich. Approves Autism Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------The federal court in Detroit approved a landmark class action settlement this week which mandates that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan shall provide insurance coverage for children with autism for the six year period at issue in the lawsuit. The settlement calls for Blue Cross to pay for treatment known as Applied Behavioral Analysis, or "ABA," received by autistic children at the Beaumont "GIFT" program between March 2003 and June 2009. Under the terms of the class action settlement, Blue Cross will fully reimburse insured families for this ABA care whether or not they made a claim with Blue Cross prior to the settlement. The court ordered Blue Cross to make these payments within the next two weeks.

Mr. Mantese stated: "This is a landmark settlement in which Blue Cross acknowledged the efficacy of applied behavioral analysis. Mr. Conway and I are pleased that we were able to obtain this victory for children with autism."

News about the settlement appeared in the Class Action Reporter on June 23, 2009.

BLUEKNIGHT ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending--------------------------------------------------------------Blueknight Energy Partners, L.P.'s motion to dismiss an amended complaint remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, according to the company's March 30, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Between July 21, 2008 and Sept. 4, 2008, these class action complaints were filed:

1. Poelman v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P., et al., Civil Action No. 08-CV-6477, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (filed July 21, 2008). The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this case on Aug. 26, 2008;

4. Michael Rubin v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Civil Action No. 08-cv-7063, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (filed Aug. 8, 2008);

5. Dharam V. Jain v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Civil Action No. 08-cv-7510, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (filed Aug. 25, 2008); and

6. William L. Hickman v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Civil Action No. 08-cv-7749, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (filed Sept. 4, 2008).

Pursuant to a motion filed with the MDL Panel, the Maurer case has been transferred to the Northern District of Oklahoma and consolidated with the Carson case. The Rubin, Jain, and Hickman cases have also been transferred to the Northern District of Oklahoma.

A hearing on motions for appointment as lead plaintiff was held in the Carson case on Oct. 17, 2008. At that hearing, the court granted a motion to consolidate the Carson and Maurer cases for pretrial proceedings, and the consolidated litigation is now pending as In Re: SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. Securities Litigation, Case No. 08-CV-425-GKF-PJC.

The court entered an order on Oct. 27, 2008, granting the motion of Harvest Fund Advisors LLC to be appointed lead plaintiff in the consolidated litigation. On Jan. 23, 2009, the court entered a Scheduling Order providing, among other things, that the lead plaintiff may file a consolidated amended complaint within 70 days of the date of the order, and that defendants may answer or otherwise respond within 60 days of the date of the filing of a consolidated amended complaint.

On Jan. 30, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a motion to modify the stay of discovery provided for under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The court granted Plaintiff's motion, and the company and certain other defendants filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals that was denied after oral argument on April 24, 2009.

The lead plaintiff obtained an extension to file its consolidated amended complaint until May 4, 2009; defendants have 60 days from that date to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint.

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on May 4, 2009. In that complaint, filed as a putative class action on behalf of all purchasers of our units from July 17, 2007 to July 17, 2008, lead plaintiff asserts claims under the federal securities laws against the company, its General Partner, certain of its current and former officers and directors, certain underwriters in the company's initial and secondary public offerings, and certain entities who were investors in SemCorp and their individual representatives who served on SemCorp's management committee.

Among other allegations, the amended complaint alleges that the company's financial condition throughout the class period was dependent upon speculative commodities trading by SemCorp and its Chief Executive Officer, Thomas L. Kivisto, and that defendants negligently and intentionally failed to disclose this speculative trading in our public filings during the class period. The amended complaint further alleges there were other material omissions and misrepresentations contained in the company's filings during the class period. The amended complaint alleges claims for violations of sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for damages and rescission with respect to all persons who purchased our units in the initial and secondary offerings, and also asserts claims under section 10b, Rule 10b-5, and section 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. The amended complaint seeks certification as a class action under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, compensatory and rescissory damages for class members, pre-judgment interest, costs of court, and attorneys' fees.

On July 22, 2009, all of the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. The lead plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss on Sept. 1, 2009.

On Oct. 8, 2009, the defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss. The lead plaintiff filed a supplemental opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss on Oct. 29, 2009.

The defendants' motion to dismiss is currently pending before the court.

Blueknight Energy Partners, L.P., formerly SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P., -- http://www.bkep.com/-- owns, operates and develops a portfolio of midstream energy assets. The company provides integrated terminalling, storage, processing, gathering and transportation services for companies engaged in the production, distribution and marketing of crude oil and liquid asphalt cement. It manages its operations through three operating segments: crude oil terminalling and storage services, crude oil gathering and transportation services and asphalt services. The company owns and operates two pipeline systems, the Mid-Continent system and the Longview system, that gather crude oil purchased by the Private Company and its other customers and transports it to refiners, to common carrier pipelines for ultimate delivery to refiners or to terminalling and storage facilities owned by the company and others.

CENTERLINE HOLDING: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Suit-------------------------------------------------------The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of a consolidated suit against Centerline Holding Company is pending before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In 2008, the company and its trustees were named as defendants in fourteen shareholder putative class and/or derivative actions arising out of its announcements in late 2007 that (i) the company had taken steps to transition its business to more of a fund manager and in connection with such action intended to reduce the dividend payable on the company's common shares from that which had been paid in prior years and (ii) the company had committed to sell and then sold 11.0% Cumulative Convertible Preferred Shares to an affiliate of TRCLP.

Six of these cases are putative class actions pending in federal court in New York that assert claims under the federal securities laws. The other eight cases are primarily derivative actions, although some purport also to assert class claims, arising under state law.

On Jan. 18, 2008, the first of the federal securities putative class actions was filed against the company and certain of its officers and trustees in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Thereafter, five other, essentially duplicative putative class actions were also filed in the same court. The complaint in each case asserted that the company and other defendants allegedly violated federal securities law by failing to disclose in a timely fashion its December 2007 transaction with Freddie Mac.

On May 5, 2008, the Court designated Centerline Investor Group, which is made up of several shareholders, as lead plaintiff for these cases. Pursuant to the Court's stipulation and order dated March 3, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on July 7, 2008 in this action, In re Centerline Holding Company Securities Litigation, No. 08 CV 00505.

The consolidated complaint also alleges violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the company's announcement of the Freddie Mac transaction, changes to the company's business model, and the reduction in dividend guidance policy, and seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Centerline Holding Company during the period March 12, 2007 through Dec. 28, 2007.

The defendants in this action filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on Oct. 27, 2008 and the motion was granted by U.S District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin on Jan. 12, 2009. Judge Scheindlin granted the plaintiff leave to replead, and the plaintiff filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint on March 13, 2009.

On April 30, 2009, the Defendants in this case filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint. The lead Plaintiff filed his opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss on June 12, 2009 and the Defendants filed their reply to the opposition motion filed by the Plaintiffs on June 30, 2009.

On Aug. 4, 2009 the Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted and the case was dismissed without leave for the plaintiff to replead. On Sept. 2, 2009, Plaintiff filed an appeal of the District Court's decision with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants have filed briefs in this appeal and are awaiting a schedule for oral argument.

Centerline Holding Company -- http://www.centerline.com/-- provides real estate financial and asset management services, including institutional debt and equity fund management, mortgage banking, and primary and special loan servicing. As of Dec. 31, 2008, it had over $14 billion of assets under management. It has four business groups: Affordable Housing, Commercial Real Estate, Portfolio Management and Credit Risk Products. Its Corporate group, consisting of Finance and Accounting, Legal, Corporate Communications, Operations and Risk Management departments, supports these business groups. The Affordable Housing and Commercial Real Estate groups raise capital through a series of funds to deploy into an array of real estate debt and equity investments. The Credit Risk Products group provides credit support to affordable housing debt and equity products for its Affordable Housing group and third-parties. The Portfolio Management group provides primary and special loan servicing for commercial real estate.

H&R BLOCK: Employees Accused of Stealing Customers' Tax Refunds---------------------------------------------------------------Jeff Gorman at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action accuses H&R Block employees of stealing customers' tax refunds by using their personal information to file fraudulent tax returns in their names, defrauding the state and federal government.

Lead plaintiffs Sharon Hawa and Kevin and Deborah Johns say H&R Block "has long known that some of its employees have improperly accessed its customers' tax returns and personal identifying information and used that information to file fraudulent tax returns in the name of those customers in order to steal tax refunds from federal and state governments."

In the class action in Bronx County Supreme Court, Ms. Hawa says she complained that when she filed her 2008 taxes at an H&R Block office in the Bronx, the federal government rejected her return because someone had already filed one in her name. The IRS had already issued a refund in the amount of $8,499, according to the lawsuit.

Ms. Hawa says the police told her that she was among dozens of victims whose identity had been stolen by a temporary employee of H&R Block "or a group of individuals working at H&R Block."

The Johns similarly claim that someone at H&R Block stole their $6,145 refund using the previous year's adjusted gross income, "a figure known only to Mr. and Mrs. Johns, their employers, and employees of H&R Block."

The plaintiffs are suing H&R Block for negligence; gross negligence in the hiring, retention, training and supervision of its employees; breach of fiduciary duty and state law violations.

HARTFORD FINANCIAL: ERISA Complaint Filed in D. Md. ---------------------------------------------------LawsuitTicker.com reports that Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. will soon have to defend itself against a class action-suit brought by common stock shareholders.

The company is accused of making misleading statements about its financial status. According the suit, the company was seeing its position deteriorate as a result of swap contracts and other bond-related instruments that went in the tank when the credit crisis escalated

On April 9, 2010, on the basis of original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d), Iovate removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of California, and the Clerk assigned Case No. 10-cv-01530 to the proceeding.

JONES SODA: Being Sold for Unfair Price, Wash. Suit Claims----------------------------------------------------------Courthouse News Service reports that the makers of Jones Soda tried to sell its company to Reed's Inc. for $9.7 million, an unfair price, a class action claims in King County (Wash.) Superior Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Beasley v. Ricci, et al., Case No. 10-2-13266-0 (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty.), is available at:

LOBLAW: Sued, with Siena, After Listeria-Related Meat Recall------------------------------------------------------------Susanna Kelley at The Canadian Press reported last month that Loblaw and Siena Foods are facing a class-action lawsuit over the latest meat recall due to Listeria contamination.

The suit, filed in Ottawa, states Siena was aware of the "potential toxicity" of several of its products but only chose to only inform distributors, putting customers at risk.

"Only after a government investigation conclusively suggested a link between the Listeria monocytogenes outbreak and Siena Foods Ltd. products did Siena Foods Ltd. expand its product recall," the suit alleges.

"The class members had never been warned of the toxic character of the products they purchased."

The suit also states that Loblaw (TSX: L.TO), as the retailer, bears responsibility to ensure the product is fit for consumption.

One of the plaintiffs, Castro Pedro of Leamington, Ont., was diagnosed with Listeria meningitis after eating a variety of Siena meats, the suit alleges.

Pedro, 58, was in the intensive care unit for 16 days and in hospital for more than three weeks, the suit states.

"A proximate cause of a heart attack and stroke suffered by Castro Pedro was the listeriosis that flowed from eating the Siena meats, including ham and salami," it alleges.

The lead plaintiff, John Morgan of Toronto, purchased a Siena cooked ham last month and after eating it began to "experience sweating, backache, headache, vomiting and diarrhea," the suit states.

The allegations have not been proven in court.

Calls to Loblaw and Siena Foods were not immediately returned.

The suit is seeking $1 million in general damages and special damages in excess of $1 million for the class members, "or other such amounts" that the court finds appropriate.

Siena has recalled all affected products, including its cooked ham, which may have been distributed nationally.

The Ontario government said Monday that it had ruled out a connection between the deaths of five people from listeriosis and the recalled meat products from Siena Foods.

The Ministry of Health said there is no food consumption history or lab data supporting a link between the Siena products and the deaths.

Spokesman Andrew Morrison said the listeriosis strains involved in the five deaths have a separate DNA fingerprint from each other, indicating they did not come from the same source.

Out of 14 listeriosis cases reported since January, including the five deaths, only two appear to have come from Siena.

Morrison said those two people were hospitalized but are now both back at home.

Consumption of food tainted with Listeria can lead to high fever, severe headache, neck stiffness and nausea. The illness is a particular danger to pregnant women and their unborn children, the elderly, and people with weakened immune systems, cancer, diabetes, kidney disease or AIDS.

Symptoms usually appear within two to 30 days, and up to 90 days after consuming contaminated food, according to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The average incubation period is about three weeks, says the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.

LODGIAN INC: Negotiates Dismissal of Merger-Related Ga. Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------On Jan. 22, 2010, Lodgian, Inc., LSREF Lodging Investments, LLC, and LSREF Lodging Merger Co., Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of LSREF, entered into a Merger Agreement, pursuant to which the Merger Sub will be merged with and into Lodgian, with Lodgian surviving the Merger and remaining as a wholly owned subsidiary of LSREF.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 9 and Mar. 29, 2010, a putative class action was commenced in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia against Lodgian, each of Lodgian's directors, LSREF and the Merger Sub, alleging that, among other things, our board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to our stockholders in approving and adopting a merger agreement that allegedly contains preclusive deal protection measures and unfair merger consideration. On Feb. 23, 2010, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add a claim that the members of Lodgian's board of directors had breached their fiduciary duty of disclosure in connection with the Schedule 14A preliminary proxy statement that the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 16, 2010. On Apr. 1, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary restraining order seeking to enjoin the completion of the Merger.

On Apr. 12, 2010, Lodgian agreed in principle to settle the putative class action. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, all claims relating to the Merger Agreement and the Merger will be dismissed on behalf of the settlement class. The proposed settlement is subject to certain conditions, including but not limited to court approval and consummation of the Merger. As part of the proposed settlement Lodgian has agreed not to object to the plaintiffs' counsel's application to the court for an award of fees and expenses in an amount not to exceed $240,000. The proposed settlement will not affect the amount of merger consideration to be paid to Lodgian's shareholders in the Merger or change any other terms of the Merger or Merger Agreement.

Lodgian believes that no further supplemental disclosure is required under applicable laws; however, to avoid the risk of the putative class action delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and to minimize the expense of defending such action, the company has agreed, pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, to make certain additional disclosures related to Houlihan Lokey's work in a Form 8-K tendered to the SEC on Apr. 12, 2010, which is available at http://is.gd/bqGbVat no charge.

MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Policy Owner Wants Fair Share of Dividends----------------------------------------------------------------Christina Chavez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, et al., Case No. BC435321 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 7, 2010), asserts breach of contract and fraud. Ms. Chavez accuses MassMutual of failing to pay accumulated dividends, including settement dividends to its participating term life insurance policy holders or beneficiaries under its term life contracts despite the policies' substantial contributions to MassMutual's divisible surplus, and concealing the fact that its term life insurance policyholders annually contribute substantial gains to MassMutual's divisible surplus during the last several years by charging a greater premium than was necessary given the significant drop in mortality rates over the last few decades, significantly lower reinsurance rates being charged by reinsurers than what was being charged to policyowners, and substantial commissions MassMutual received from reinsurers.

NATIONAL STORES: Accused of Labor Code Violations-------------------------------------------------Edwin O'Neal, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. National Stores, Inc., Case No. BC435441 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 8, 2010), accuses the retailer of not paying them for all overtime hours worked, failing to provide meal and rest periods, failing to pay all wages due upon termination, and failing to provide accurate wage statements, in violation of the Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. Mr. O'Neal works as a Store Manager at National Stores' retail facility located in Watsonville, California.

NEW YORK: Court Okays Staten Island Ferry Case Contingency Fee--------------------------------------------------------------Mark Fass at the New York Law Journal report that a Manhattan attorney who secured an $18.3 million verdict in a case stemming from the 2003 Staten Island Ferry disaster is entitled to the full one-third fee called for in his retainer agreement, a federal judge has ruled.

The decision by the Honorable Jack B. Weinstein in McMillan v. The City of New York, Case Nos. 08-cv-2887 and 03-cv-6049 (E.D.N.Y.), marks the latest in a series of ups and downs for attorney Evan Torgan, who has fought for nearly two years to have his retainer agreement upheld.

In September 2008, Weinstein cut Torgan's fee to 20 percent from the 33 percent set forth in his retainer, a reduction to just over $3.6 million from about $6 million. The judge stated that the reduced fee was appropriate because the litigation required less effort and constituted less risk than a typical personal injury action, as the city's liability for the ferry crash had been determined in a prior proceeding handled by other attorneys.

When Torgan asked the court to reconsider the reduction, Weinstein forwarded the matter to Eastern District Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky. The judge also asked the magistrate judge to consider whether Torgan's initial meetings with client James McMillan, which took place in a Staten Island hospital in the days following the accident, might merit disciplinary action.

In a decision issued in March, the magistrate judge found that Torgan did not commit any potential ethical violations, but that the fee reduction to 22 percent from 33 percent was appropriate.

In a two-page decision Monday, Weinstein declined to affirm the magistrate judge's recommendation, reinstating the original 33-percent fee called for by the retainer agreement.

"The fee in the retainer agreement is confirmed and supported by the client as one he freely agreed to and now wishes to pay in full," the judge wrote in McMillan v. City of New York, 08-cv-2887.

But the judge also ordered the difference between the reinstated fee and the reduced fee -- i.e., 13 percent of the net award, or approximately $2.7 million -- to be placed in escrow for possible payment to the attorneys who oversaw the liability phase of the ferry litigation. There is pending litigation over claims for a portion of the fee by those attorneys, the judge said.

"Their work allegedly resulted in rejection of New York City's claim of limited liability under maritime law," Weinstein wrote. "The benefits of that aspect of this quasi-class action litigation allegedly accrued to hundreds of injured claimants, including the client."

The plaintiff in the underlying action, McMillan, was on the second deck of the Andrew J. Barberi when it struck a concrete maintenance pier on Oct. 15, 2003. Flying debris shattered McMillan's spine, paralyzing him from the shoulders down.

McMillan and 171 other individuals sued the city for their injuries. The cases were joined for the issue of whether the city's liability would be capped under maritime law. The attorneys for the liability phase -- liaison counsel Bosco, Bisignano & Mascolo and maritime counsel of Dougherty, Ryan, Giuffra, Zambito & Hession -- are seeking 8 percent of the gross recovery.

Although the liability counsel are seeking 8 percent of the gross, some plaintiffs may be assessed a larger share because their awards followed the liability ruling, and thus directly profited from the attorneys' work.

Torgan said Monday that he was "delighted that the judge found that I acted ethically and tried the case with great skill." He added that he was also "very happy" that Weinstein recognized the one-third fee as "an appropriate retainer."

NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss New York Suit Pending-----------------------------------------------------------NovaStar Financial, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a purported class action case remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated.

Defendants in the case include NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation and its individual directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by the company, and several unaffiliated investment banks and credit rating agencies.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans that served as collateral for securities purchased by plaintiff and the purported class members.

On Aug. 31, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims.

NovaStar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.novastarfinancial.com/-- and its subsidiaries holds non-conforming residential mortgage securities. The company previously originated, purchased, securitized, sold, invested in and serviced residential nonconforming mortgage loans and mortgage backed securities. It retained, thorough the mortgage securities investment portfolio, interests in the nonconforming loans, originated and purchased, and through the servicing platform, serviced all of the loans in which it retained interests. Effective Aug. 1, 2008, the Company acquired a 75% interest in StreetLinks National Appraisal Services LLC (StreetLinks), a residential mortgage appraisal company. The company also acquired a majority interest in Advent Financial Services LLC.

NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle "Jones" Suit for $925,000--------------------------------------------------------------NovaStar Financial, Inc., has agreed to settle the purported class action case filed by Jennifer Jones for $925,000, according to the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On July 7, 2008, plaintiff Jennifer Jones filed a purported class action case in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri against the company, certain former and current officers of the company, and unnamed members of the Company's "Retirement Committee".

Plaintiff, a former employee of the company, seeks class action certification on behalf of all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the company's 401(k) plan from May 4, 2006 until Nov. 15, 2007 and whose accounts included investments in the company's common stock. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages alleging that the company's common stock was an inappropriately risky investment option for retirement savings, and that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by allowing investment of some of the assets contained in the 401(k) plan to be made in the company's common stock.

On Nov. 12, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss which was denied by the Court on Feb. 11, 2009.

On April 6, 2009, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The company sought permission from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal the order granting class certification.

On May 11, 2009 the Court of Appeals granted the company permission to appeal the class certification order.

On Nov. 9, 2009, the company reached a settlement with the plaintiffs. The settlement provides for payment by the company's insurer of $925,000. A hearing for Court approval of the settlement is set for April 22, 2010.

NovaStar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.novastarfinancial.com/-- and its subsidiaries holds non-conforming residential mortgage securities. The company previously originated, purchased, securitized, sold, invested in and serviced residential nonconforming mortgage loans and mortgage backed securities. It retained, thorough the mortgage securities investment portfolio, interests in the nonconforming loans, originated and purchased, and through the servicing platform, serviced all of the loans in which it retained interests. Effective Aug. 1, 2008, the Company acquired a 75% interest in StreetLinks National Appraisal Services LLC (StreetLinks), a residential mortgage appraisal company. The company also acquired a majority interest in Advent Financial Services LLC.

NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Defends Shareholder Suit in Massachusetts---------------------------------------------------------------Novelos Therapeutics, Inc., defends a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, according to the company's March 30, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The suit was filed on on March 5, 2010, by Drew Weaver, allegedly a purchaser of shares of Novelos' common stock on Feb. 1, 2010, on behalf of himself and all others who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock in the period between Dec. 14, 2009 and Feb. 24, 2010, against Novelos and its President and Chief Executive Officer, Harry S. Palmin. The complaint claims that the company violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with alleged disclosures related to the Phase 3 Trial.

RANCHO VISTA: Homeowner Wants Compensation for House's Defects--------------------------------------------------------------John Ely, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Rancho Vista Development Co., Case No. BC435464 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 8, 2010), assert breach of express warranties and breach of implied warranties of merchantability. Mr. Ely says that the developer mass produced single family dwellings at its housing development more familiarly know as SKYLINE, in the City of Palmdale, County of Los Angeles, which contained construction defects due to design and specifications deficiencies and other "latent" deficiencies. As a direct result, Mr. Ely says that he suffered damages of an amount presently unknown.

Class action litigation involving allegations that hourly associates have missed meal and/or rest break periods, as wellas allegations of unpaid overtime wages to assistant store managers at all company stores under federal and state law,remains pending as of Jan. 30, 2010.

No further details regarding the litigations were disclosed in the company's March 30, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 30, 2010.

Ross Stores, Inc. -- http://www.rossstores.com/-- and its subsidiaries operate two chains of off-price retail apparel andhome accessories stores in the U.S. Its stores offer branded apparel, accessories, footwear, and home fashions for men andwomen between the ages of 25 and 54, as well as gift items, linens, and other home related merchandise.

SERVICEMASTER CO: Plaintiffs in Four Suits Dismiss Suits--------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs in four complaints against The ServiceMaster Co. have voluntarily dismissed their cases against the company.

Following the announcement of the proposed acquisition of ServiceMaster by the Equity Sponsors, five complaints were filed against ServiceMaster concerning the proposed merger.

In the matter Smith v. The ServiceMaster Co., et al., on Sept. 29, 2008, the Court approved a settlement agreement that contained no award of monetary payments to the plaintiffs. The court's approval of settlement is now final and non-appealable, and the company satisfied the payment of the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees in November 2008. The amount of the payment of the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees was not material to the company's financial condition or results of operations.

In November 2009, based on settlement in the Smith case, the plaintiffs in the other cases voluntarily dismissed their cases at no cost to the company, according to the company's March 30, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The ServiceMaster Co. -- http://www.servicemaster.com/-- is a national company serving both residential and commercialcustomers. The Company's services include lawn care, landscape maintenance, termite and pest control, home warranty, disaster response and reconstruction, cleaning and disaster restoration, house cleaning, furniture repair, and home inspection.

SERVICEMASTER CO: Settlement in "Squires" Gets Preliminary Nod--------------------------------------------------------------The Chancery Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, gave its preliminary approval to the settlement agreement resolving the matter Squires v. The ServiceMaster Company and Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, Inc., according to the company's March 30, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On March 11, 2008, a lawsuit was filed by Vernon Squires, the Company's former General Counsel, on behalf of himself and a putative class, against the Company and CD&R, in the Chancery Court of Shelby County, Tennessee.

The complaint alleges that, in connection with the acquisition of the company by the Equity Sponsors, the defendants improperly cancelled out-of-the-money stock options that had been previously granted to individuals in connection with certain stock option plans.

On Jan. 5, 2010, the Court preliminarily approved a settlement agreement that calls for the company to pay monies into a settlement fund that will be used to pay all claims asserted, or arising, from cancellation of the stock options, including claims for attorney fees related thereto. The amount to be paid into the settlement fund is not material to the Company's financial condition or results of operations. The hearing to consider final approval of the settlement was scheduled last March 30, 2010.

The ServiceMaster Co. -- http://www.servicemaster.com/-- is a national company serving both residential and commercialcustomers. The Company's services include lawn care, landscape maintenance, termite and pest control, home warranty, disaster response and reconstruction, cleaning and disaster restoration, house cleaning, furniture repair, and home inspection.

SIGNET JEWELERS: Unit Defends Private Plaintiffs' Suit in N.Y.--------------------------------------------------------------Sterling Jewelers Inc., a subsidiary of Signet Jewelers Limited, continues to defend a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

In March 2008, private plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against Sterling Jewelers Inc., alleging that US store-level employment practices are discriminatory as to compensation and promotional activities.

No further details regarding the lawsuit were provided in the company's March 30, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 30, 2010.

Signet Jewelers Limited -- http://www.signetjewelers.com/-- formerly Signet Group plc, is a specialty retail jeweler, withstores in the United States, United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland and Channel Islands. In the United States, as of Jan. 31, 2009, Signet operated 1,401 stores in 50 states. Its stores trade nationally in malls and off-mall locations as Kay Jewelers (Kay), and regionally under a number of mall-based brands. Destination superstores trade nationwide as Jared The Galleria Of Jewelry (Jared). In the United Kinfdom, the stores trade as H.Samuel, Ernest Jones and Leslie Davis, and are situated in High Street locations (main shopping thoroughfares with high pedestrian traffic) or shopping malls. The United Kingdom division operated 558 stores, as of Jan. 31, 2009, including 14 stores in the Republic of Ireland. The Company operates in two geographical segments: the United States division (approximately 76% of sales) and the United Kingdom division (approximately 24% of sales).

SUPER REMATE: Sued for Not Paying All Wages Due -----------------------------------------------Christian Espinoza, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Super Remate de Autos, et al., Case No. BC435165 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 2, 2010), accuses the used car dealer of failing to pay all wages due, failing to pay the minimum wage, failing to pay overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest periods, and other labor code violations. Mr. Espinoza and the other class members are current or former automobile salesperson employees at Super Remate's used automobile dealership.

Mr. Espinoza says he works on a commission-only basis, earning a commission of 22% of the profit from each automobile that he sells. Mr. Espinoza claims that he did not actually receive the full commission earned because Super Remate would deduct from his commission business expenses not directly traceable to the vehicle sold and post-repair service costs. If a customer defaults on his payments, Super Remate would also charge back previously earned and paid commission from the employees' subsequent wages. Mr. Espinoza explains that if a salesperson-employee was not able to close a sale during a pay period, that person would not receive any wages for hours worked. Further, Mr. Espinoza says Super Remate forced employees to perform work totally unrelated to sales, including vehicle repossessions, without compensation.

TOYOTA MOTORS: Faces Subrogation Action From Insurance Firms------------------------------------------------------------Mark Huffman at ConsumerAffairs.com reports that Allstate and State Farm have confirmed that their companies have begun a "subrogation" process with Toyota, though neither firm would provide much in the way of detail.

Subrogation is the shifting of a financial burden from one party to another. In this case, the auto insurance companies that have paid out millions of dollars over the years for accidents involving Toyotas will try to recover some of that money.

Industry sources say Allstate has notified Toyota that it has claims that it believes may be the result of a product defect. While some sources say the initial review of cases may only extend back a few months, the potential is there for a wider review.

In January Toyota recalled 2.3 million vehicles to repair a "sticky" accelerator pedal, which it described as the possible source of some sudden acceleration incidents. It has steadfastly insisted the electronics system is not at fault.

Both ConsumerAffairs.com and official sources like the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have complaints about sudden acceleration in Toyotas that extend back to at least 2005.

USA Today quotes Mark Bunim, an attorney with Case Closure, a mediation firm, as saying subrogation actions could end up costing Toyota as much as $30 million, and the insurance companies wouldn't be the only ones getting paid. Consumers who paid deductibles involved in those claims could also get refunds.

Claim denied

According to USA Today, State Farm attempted to recover claims in 2007 for an accident involving a 2005 Toyota Camry. NHTSA said it had looked into the sudden acceleration complaint and closed its investigation. State Farm was not reimbursed, the newspaper said.

This is but the latest setback for the Japanese automaker, which holds around 17 percent of the US automotive market. Many of these problems have emerged since February, when Clarence Ditlow of the Center for Auto Safety told ConsumerAffairs.com that the carmaker could bounce back, but only on one condition.

"For the next year they have to bat 1,000," he said. "If they make a mistake they have to correct it almost overnight."

Toyota has attempted to get the healing process started with a number of financial incentives to bring customers back into the showrooms. While it's worked so far, a protracted battle with insurance companies -- who could increase consumers' rates on policies insuring Toyotas -- could put the strategy to the test.

UHS OF DELAWARE: Sued for Non-Payment of Agreed Wages-----------------------------------------------------Latelle Barton, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. UHS of Delaware, Inc., dba Universal Health services of Delaware, Inc., Case No. BC435274 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 6, 2010), accuses the healthcare provider of not providing meal and rest periods, failing to pay wages at the agreed rate, failing to pay overtime compensation, untimely payment of compensation upon termination, forfeiture of vacation pay, and other violations of the Labor Code and Business & Professions Code. Mr. Latelle worked as a Psychiatric Assistant for UHS' healthcare facility, De Amo Behavioral Health, in Torrance, California, between December 2004 and January 2010.

ASBESTOS ALERT: Northern Lights Fined $70T for Safety Violations----------------------------------------------------------------Investigators from Alaska Occupation Safety and Health say that Northern Lights Center LLC, the owner of the building that had housed the Matanuska Maid creamery and warehouse in Midtown, Anchorage, Alaska, was fined US$70,000 for failing to protect employees renovating the structure, the Anchorage Daily News reports.

The investigators say Northern Lights knew the building contained asbestos but failed to perform an adequate asbestos exposure assessment. The Company also failed to ensure proper exposure control methods were used and failed to warn employees about the asbestos hazards prior to performing demolition activities, according to AKOSH.

Safety enforcement officer Keith Bailey said he first approached the site in April 2009 in response to a complaint from a worker. The Company was unable to provide an asbestos hazard assessment, and a survey conducted with an environmental company discovered asbestos was present, Mr. Bailey said.

Investigators did not issue a stop-work order after the initial visit, though the Company was put on notice that it needed to take action to avoid putting workers at risk, said Grey Mitchell, director of the state Labor Standards and Safety Division. Then in June 2009, the city informed investigators that work was continuing at the site, he said.

In July 2009, Mr. Bailey did an inspection and found that additional construction had been taking place, despite the stop-work order, he said.

AKOSH issued the Company two citations in September 2009. Northern Lights Center initially contested the citations, but now has agreed to pay the penalty specified in the initial citations, Mr. Mitchell said.

C&D Disposal has been a licensed demolition material landfill since 2004. The facility is not permitted to accept solid waste. The suit claims the Company filled the landfill eight times since June 30, 2008, illegally accepted solid waste and once accepted asbestos containing material.

The lawsuit also claims demolition landfills are required to unload debris in designated, marked zones. Five times since June 2008, C&D Disposal failed to unload waste in the designated zone at the facility, the lawsuit states.

Demolition landfills are required to cover the material on a weekly basis with soil to prevent fires. C & D Disposal 12 times failed to cover the demolition debris on a weekly basis. There was a fire in the material at C & D Disposal on Dec. 31, 2009, according to the lawsuit.

The attorney general's office states C & D Disposal illegally disposed of demolition material and allowed open dumping of solid waste on areas outside the working face of the landfill. The Company also failed to file an adequate bond based on the acreage of the facility, according to the suit.

The attorney general's office seeks a court order forcing the Company to comply with demolition material landfills and seeks fines of US$10,000 per day for each violation.

Since late 2001, Bowater Incorporated, several other paper companies, and numerous other companies have been named as defendants in asbestos personal injury actions. These actions generally allege occupational exposure to numerous products.

The Company has denied the allegations and no specific product of the Company has been identified by the plaintiffs in any of the actions as having caused or contributed to any individual plaintiff's alleged asbestos-related injury.

These suits have been filed by about 1,800 claimants who sought monetary damages in civil actions pending in state courts in Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, New York and Texas.

About 1,000 of these claims have been dismissed, either voluntarily or by summary judgment. Any pending actions against Bowater are currently stayed as a result of the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases.

Headquartered in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, AbitibiBowater Inc. produces newsprint and coated and specialty papers. In addition, the Company produces and sells market pulp and wood products.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 22 Lawsuits Pending v. Ameron Int'l. at Feb. 28----------------------------------------------------------------Ameron International Corporation was a defendant in 22 asbestos-related cases as of Feb. 28, 2010, compared with 20 cases as of Nov. 30, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on April 1, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company is a defendant in a number of asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits. These cases generally seek unspecified damages for asbestos-related diseases based on alleged exposure to products previously manufactured by the Company and others.

During the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2010, there were five new asbestos-related cases, one case dismissed, two cases settled, no judgments and recovery of US$7,000, net of expenses.

Based in Pasadena, Calif., Ameron International Corporation produces water transmission lines; fiberglass-composite pipe for transporting oil, chemicals and corrosive fluids and specialized materials; and products used in infrastructure projects. The Company operates businesses in North America, South America, Europe and Asia.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Continuing v. TOTAL S.A.----------------------------------------------------------------TOTAL S.A. continues to be involved in claims related to occupational diseases caused by asbestos exposure, according to the Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed on April 1, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Like many other industrial groups, the Company is affected by reports of occupational diseases caused by asbestos exposure. The circumstances described in these reports generally concern activities prior to the beginning of the 1980s, long before the adoption of more comprehensive bans on the new installation of asbestos-containing products in most of the countries where the Company operates (Jan. 1, 1997, in France).

The Company's various businesses are not particularly likely to lead to significant exposure to asbestos-related risks, since this material was generally not used in manufacturing processes, except in limited cases. The main potential sources of exposure are related to the use of certain insulating components in industrial equipment.

These components are being gradually eliminated from the Company's equipment through asbestos-elimination plans that have been underway for several years. However, considering the long period of time that may elapse before the harmful results of exposure to asbestos arise (up to 40 years), the Company anticipates that other reports may be filed in the years to come. Asbestos-related issues have been subject to close monitoring in all the Company's business units.

As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Company estimates that the ultimate cost of all asbestos-related claims paid or pending is not likely to have a material effect on the financial situation of the Company.

Headquartered in Courbevoie, France, TOTAL S.A. engages in all aspects of the petroleum industry, including Upstream operations (oil and gas exploration, development and production, LNG) and Downstream operations (refining, marketing and the trading and shipping of crude oil and petroleum products). The Company also produces base chemicals (petrochemicals and fertilizers) and specialty chemicals for the industrial and consumer markets.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: FutureFuel Corporation Subject to Injury Claims----------------------------------------------------------------From time to time, FutureFuel Corp. may be party to, or targets of, lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings, including product liability, personal injury, asbestos, patent and intellectual property, which the Company expects to be handled and defended in the ordinary course of business.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's annual report filed on March 15, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Clayton, Mo., FutureFuel Corp. manufactures biodiesel and other biofuels. However, its core business is specialty chemicals, which includes such chemicals as herbicides, detergent additives, colorants, photographic and imaging chemicals, and food additives.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PMA Capital Has $26MM Gross Reserves at Dec. 31----------------------------------------------------------------PMA Capital Corporation's gross reserves for asbestos-related losses were US$26 million at Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$29.5 million at Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual report filed on March 16, 2010, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's net reserves for asbestos-related losses were US$10.3 million at Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$11.4 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

Headquartered in Blue Bell, Pa., PMA Capital Corporation is a holding company whose operating subsidiaries provide insurance and fee-based services. Its insurance products include workers' compensation and other commercial property and casualty lines of insurance. Fee-based services include third party administrator, managing general agent and program administrator services.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 8,168 Injury Claims Pending v. Ampco at Dec. 31----------------------------------------------------------------Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation faced 8,168 open asbestos-related claims for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with 9,354 open claims for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual report filed on March 16, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company faced 8,870 open asbestos claims for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009, compared with 9,415 claims for the six months ended June 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 13, 2009)

The Company resolved 3,336 claims for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with 1,015 claims for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Gross settlement and defense costs were US$28,744,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$19,102,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically used in some products of certain of the Company's operating subsidiaries (Asbestos Liability) and of an inactive subsidiary in dissolution and another former division of the Company. Those subsidiaries, and in some cases the Company, are defendants (among a number of defendants, typically over 50) in cases filed in various state and federal courts.

A substantial majority of the settlement and defense costs were reported and paid by insurers. In 2006, for the first time, a claim for Asbestos Liability against one of the Company's subsidiaries was tried to a jury. The trial resulted in a defense verdict.

Plaintiffs appealed that verdict and in 2008 the California Court of Appeals reversed the jury verdict and remanded the case back to the trial court.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries and the Company have an arrangement (Coverage Arrangement) with insurers responsible for historical primary and some umbrella insurance coverage for Asbestos Liability (Paying Insurers).

Under the Coverage Arrangement, the Paying Insurers accept financial responsibility, subject to the limits of the policies and based on fixed defense percentages and specified indemnity allocation formulas, for a substantial majority of the pending claims for Asbestos Liability.

The claims against the inactive subsidiary in dissolution of the Company, about 325 as of Dec. 31, 2009, are not included within the Coverage Arrangement. The one claim filed against the former division also is not included within the Coverage Arrangement.

The Coverage Arrangement includes an acknowledgement that Howden Buffalo, Inc. is entitled to coverage under policies covering Asbestos Liability for claims arising out of the historical products manufactured or distributed by Buffalo Forge, a former subsidiary of the Company (the Products).

The Coverage Arrangement does not provide for any prioritization on access to the applicable policies or monetary cap other than the limits of the policies, and, accordingly, Howden may access the policies at any time for any covered claim arising out of a Product.

In general, access by Howden to the policies covering the Products will erode the coverage under the policies available to the Company and the relevant subsidiaries for Asbestos Liability alleged to arise out of not only the Products but also other historical products of the Company and its subsidiaries covered by the applicable policies.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation operates in two business segments. The Forged and Cast Rolls segment consists of Union Electric Steel Corporation (Union Electric Steel) and The Davy Roll Company Limited (Davy Roll). The Air and Liquid Processing segment includes Aerofin, Buffalo Air Handling and Buffalo Pumps, all divisions of Air & Liquid Systems Corporation.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Howden's Lawsuit v. Ampco Ongoing in Pa. Court---------------------------------------------------------------Howden Buffalo, Inc.'s asbestos-related insurance lawsuit against Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation and various insurance companies is ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

On Aug. 4, 2009, Howden filed a lawsuit against the Company, two insurance companies that allegedly issued policies to Howden that are not relevant to the Company, and two other insurance companies that issued excess insurance policies covering certain subsidiaries of the Company (Excess Policies), but that are not yet part of a Coverage Arrangement.

In the lawsuit, Howden seeks a declaratory judgment from the court as to the respective rights and obligations of Howden, the Company and the insurance carriers under Excess Policies. One of the excess carriers and the Company have filed cross-claims against each other seeking declarations regarding their respective rights and obligations under Excess Policies issued by that carrier.

The Company's cross-claim also seeks damages for the carrier's failure to pay certain defense and indemnity costs.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation operates in two business segments. The Forged and Cast Rolls segment consists of Union Electric Steel Corporation (Union Electric Steel) and The Davy Roll Company Limited (Davy Roll). The Air and Liquid Processing segment includes Aerofin, Buffalo Air Handling and Buffalo Pumps, all divisions of Air & Liquid Systems Corporation.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco Has $147MM Long-Term Liability at Dec. 31----------------------------------------------------------------Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation's long-term asbestos liability amounted to US$147,093,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$187,014,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual report filed on March 16, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's current asbestos liability amounted to US$30 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$20 million as of Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable amounted to US$95,430,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$95,430,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable amounted to US$20 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$14 million as of Dec. 31, 2008.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation operates in two business segments. The Forged and Cast Rolls segment consists of Union Electric Steel Corporation (Union Electric Steel) and The Davy Roll Company Limited (Davy Roll). The Air and Liquid Processing segment includes Aerofin, Buffalo Air Handling and Buffalo Pumps, all divisions of Air & Liquid Systems Corporation.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Gross A&E Reserve at $638.7M at Dec. 31----------------------------------------------------------------Everest Re Group, Ltd.'s gross asbestos- and environmental-related reserves were US$638.7 million at Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$786.8 million at Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual report filed on March 1, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's net A&E-related reserves were US$613.1 million at Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$749.1 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

At Dec. 31, 2009, the gross reserves for A&E losses were comprised of US$141.5 million representing case reserves reported by ceding companies, US$150.2 million representing additional case reserves established by the Company on assumed reinsurance claims, US$63 million representing case reserves established by the Company on direct excess insurance claims, including Mt. McKinley, and US$283.9 million representing IBNR (incurred but not reported) reserves.

With respect to asbestos only, at Dec. 31, 2009, the Company had gross asbestos loss reserves of US$608.8 million, or 95.3 percent, of total A&E reserves, of which US$477.9 million was for assumed business and US$130.9 million was for direct business.

Headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda, Everest Re Group, Ltd.'s principal business, conducted through its operating segments, is the underwriting of reinsurance and insurance in the United States, Bermuda and international markets.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Cites $11.3M Net A&E Reserve at Dec. 31----------------------------------------------------------------The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s net asbestos- and environmental-related reserves amounted to US$11.3 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, of which US$6.5 million related to asbestos and US$4.8 million related to environmental matters.

The Company's net A&E-related reserves amounted to US$18.5 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, of which US$10.3 million related to asbestos and US$8.2 million related to environmental matters.

In addition, the Company has established loss and loss adjustment expense reserves for assumed reinsurance pool business with asbestos and environmental damage liability of US$45.6 million at Dec. 31, 2009 and US$58.4 million at Dec. 31, 2008. These reserves relate to pools in which the Company has terminated its participation. However, the Company continues to be subject to claims related to years in which the Company was a participant.

A significant part of the Company's pool reserves relates to the Company's participation in the Excess and Casualty Reinsurance Association (ECRA) voluntary pool from 1950 to 1982. In 1982, the pool was dissolved and since that time, the business has been in runoff. The Company's percentage of the total pool liabilities varied from one percent to six percent during these years.

The Company's participation in this pool has resulted in average paid losses of about US$2 million annually over the past 10 years. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company's ECRA pool reserves were lowered by US$6.3 million as the result of an actuarial study completed by the ECRA pool.

In addition, during the year, management recorded favorable development of US$4.3 million on a separate large claim settlement within these pools.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EMC Insurance Has $4.49MM for Claims at Dec. 31----------------------------------------------------------------EMC Insurance Group, Inc.'s asbestos-related loss and settlement expense reserves amounted to US$4,495,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$4,937,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's asbestos-related losses and settlement expenses incurred amounted to US$796,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$1,502,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company has exposure to asbestos and environmental related claims associated with the insurance business written by the parties to the pooling agreement and the reinsurance business assumed from Employers Mutual by the reinsurance subsidiary.

Asbestos and environmental losses paid by the Company have averaged US$946,458 per year over the past five years, but have increased during the past two years.

At present, the pool participants are defending about 900 asbestos bodily injury lawsuits, some of which involve multiple plaintiffs. Five former policyholders and one current policyholder dominate the pool participants' asbestos claims.

During 2003, the pool participants were presented with several hundred plaintiff lawsuits (primarily multi-plaintiff lawsuits) filed against three former policyholders representing about 66,500 claimants related to exposure to asbestos or products containing asbestos. These claims are based upon nonspecific asbestos exposure and nonspecific injuries.

During the period 2006 through 2009, several of the multi-plaintiff lawsuits (including the vast majority of those associated with one former policyholder) were dismissed. During 2009, about 3,000 additional claims against one former policyholder were reported to the pool participants. As of Dec. 31, 2009, about 5,500 of the claims remain open.

During 2006, the pool participants received notice that another former policyholder was a named defendant in about 33,000 claims nationwide. As of Dec. 31, 2009, about 27,000 of these claims remain open.

Prior to 2008, actual losses paid for asbestos-related claims had been minimal due to the plaintiffs' failure to identify an exposure to any asbestos-containing product associated with the pool participants' current and former policyholders. However, paid losses increased significantly during 2008 and 2009 as a result of claims attributed to two former policyholders.

One of these former policyholders, a broker of various products, including asbestos, settled a claim for about US$450,000 (the Company's share) in 2008. Prior to 2008, the asbestos exposure associated with this former policyholder had been thought to be relatively small.

At Dec. 31, 2009, one additional claim associated with this former policyholder remains open, though similar exposure on that claim is not anticipated. The other former policyholder, a furnace manufacturer, had multiple claims settle for a total of about US$514,000 (the Company's share) in 2008 and 2009. The asbestos exposure associated with this former policyholder increased during this time period, and this trend may possibly continue into the future with increased per plaintiff settlements.

About 170 asbestos exposure claims associated with this former policyholder remain open. Defense costs for asbestos-related claims continue to be rather significant due to the large number of parties involved in the litigation proceedings and the length of time required obtaining judgments.

During 2009, an underlying exposure decrease resulted in a premium decrease in the other liability line. Since formula IBNR (incurred but not reported) loss reserves are calculated through the application of IBNR factors to premiums earned, this exposure decrease resulted in a decrease of US$286,000 in prior accident year IBNR loss reserves.

In addition, reserves for prior accident years' asbestos claims were increased US$810,000 to maintain adequacy targets. The net increase in IBNR loss reserves resulting from these two adjustments generated US$524,000 of adverse development.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alamo Group Still Has $277,000 Gradall Reserves----------------------------------------------------------------Alamo Group Inc. still has a reserve of US$277,000 concerning a potential asbestos issue at Gradall's facility in Ohio that is expected to be abated over time.

At December 31, 2009, the Company had an environmental reserve in the amount of US$1,608,000 related to the acquisition of Gradall's facility. Three specific remediation projects that were identified prior to the acquisition are in process of remediation with a remaining reserve balance of US$143,000.

The balance of the reserve, US$1,188,000, is mainly for potential ground water contamination/remediation that was identified before the acquisition and believed to have been generated by a third party company located near the Gradall facility.

Headquartered in Seguin, Tex., Alamo Group Inc. designs, manufactures, distributes and services high quality equipment for right-of-way maintenance and agriculture.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Involved in Cases From Cryovac Deal---------------------------------------------------------------Sealed Air Corporation, since the beginning of 2000, has been served with lawsuits alleging that, as a result of the Cryovac transaction, the Company is responsible for alleged asbestos liabilities of W. R. Grace & Co. and its subsidiaries, some of which were also named as co-defendants in some of these actions.

In connection with the Cryovac transaction, Grace and its subsidiaries retained all liabilities arising out of their operations before the Cryovac transaction, whether accruing or occurring before or after the Cryovac transaction, other than liabilities arising from or relating to Cryovac's operations.

Among the liabilities retained by Grace are liabilities relating to asbestos-containing products previously manufactured or sold by Grace's subsidiaries prior to the Cryovac transaction, including its primary U.S. operating subsidiary, W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn., which has operated for decades and has been a subsidiary of Grace since the Cryovac transaction.

The Cryovac transaction agreements provided that, should any claimant seek to hold the Company or any of its subsidiaries responsible for liabilities retained by Grace or its subsidiaries, including the asbestos-related liabilities, Grace and its subsidiaries would indemnify and defend the Company.

Among these lawsuits are several purported class actions and a number of personal injury lawsuits. Some plaintiffs seek damages for personal injury or wrongful death, while others seek medical monitoring, environmental remediation or remedies related to an attic insulation product.

Neither the former Sealed Air Corporation nor Cryovac, Inc. ever produced or sold any of the asbestos-containing materials that are the subjects of these cases. None of these cases has reached resolution through judgment, settlement or otherwise.

While the allegations in these actions directed to the Company vary, these actions all appear to allege that the transfer of the Cryovac business as part of the Cryovac transaction was a fraudulent transfer or gave rise to successor liability.

Under a theory of successor liability, plaintiffs with claims against Grace and its subsidiaries may attempt to hold the Company liable for liabilities that arose with respect to activities conducted prior to the Cryovac transaction by W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn. or other Grace subsidiaries.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Unit Still Facing Thundersky Action---------------------------------------------------------------Sealed Air Corporation's Canadian subsidiary, Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie, since 2004, is a defendant in an asbestos case of Thundersky v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File No. CI04-01-39818), pending in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench.

W. R. Grace & Co. and W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn. are also named as defendants. The plaintiff brought the claim as a putative class proceeding and seeks recovery for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian resident, other than in the course of employment, as a result of Grace's marketing, selling, processing, manufacturing, distributing and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada prior to the Cryovac Transaction.

A plaintiff filed another proceeding in January 2005 in the Manitoba Court of The Queen's Bench naming the Company and specified subsidiaries as defendants. The latter proceeding, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File No. CI05-01-41069), seeks the recovery of the cost of insured health services allegedly provided by the Government of Manitoba to the members of the class of plaintiffs in the Thundersky proceeding.

In October 2005, the Company learned that six additional putative class proceedings had been brought in various provincial and federal courts in Canada seeking recovery from the Company and its subsidiaries Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie, as well as other defendants including Grace and W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn., for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian resident, other than in the course of employment (except with respect to one of these six claims), as a result of Grace's marketing, selling, manufacturing, processing, distributing and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada prior to the Cryovac transaction.

Grace and W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn. have agreed to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Company and its affiliates in respect of any liability and expense, including legal fees and costs, in these actions.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: MPERS Action v. Sealed Air Settled in Dec. 2009----------------------------------------------------------------Sealed Air Corporation says that a settlement was fully funded in December 2009, and a case involving asbestos, with the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System (MPERS) as the plaintiff, is now closed.

On Sept. 15, 2003, the case of Senn v. Hickey, et al. (Case No. 03-CV-4372) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark). This lawsuit sought class action status on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Sealed Air securities during the period from March 27, 2000 through July 30, 2002.

The lawsuit named the Company and five current and former officers and directors of the Company as defendants. The Company was required to provide indemnification to the other defendants, and accordingly, the Company's counsel also defended them.

On June 29, 2004, the court granted plaintiff Miles Senn's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval of his choice of lead counsel. The plaintiff's amended complaint made a number of allegations against the defendants.

The principal allegations were that during the above period the defendants materially misled the investing public, artificially inflated the price of the Company's common stock by publicly issuing false and misleading statements and violated U.S. GAAP by failing to properly account and accrue for the Company's contingent liability for asbestos claims arising from past operations of W. R. Grace & Co. The plaintiff sought unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

On March 14, 2005, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the Senn v. Hickey, et al. case for failure to state a claim. On Dec. 19, 2005, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Court determined that the complaint failed adequately to allege scienter as to the four individual defendants other than T.J. Dermot Dunphy, and therefore dismissed the lawsuit with respect to these four individual defendants, but adequately alleged scienter as to Mr. Dunphy and the Company.

Mr. Dunphy is a current director of the Company and was formerly Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company.

On Dec. 28, 2005, the defendants requested that the Court reconsider the portion of the Dec. 19, 2005 order denying defendants' motion to dismiss with regard to the Company's arguments other than scienter, or, in the alternative, that the Court certifies the matter for interlocutory appeal. On Feb. 13, 2006, the defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint. On April 7, 2006, the Court heard oral argument on defendants' reconsideration motion, and on July 10, 2006, the Court denied the motion on the ground that issues of fact prevent the Court from granting a motion to dismiss based on the Company's arguments other than scienter.

On Oct. 3, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to certify a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Sealed Air securities during the period from March 27, 2000 through July 30, 2002. On Nov. 22, 2006, plaintiff filed an amended motion for class certification, seeking to withdraw as a class representative and to substitute a new class representative, the Louisiana MPERS.

On March 26, 2007, the Court entered an order permitting Miles Senn to withdraw as lead plaintiff and permitting MPERS to be substituted as lead plaintiff. Consequently, the case is now properly referred to as MPERS v. Sealed Air Corporation, et al.

On March 29, 2007, MPERS, as lead plaintiff, filed a motion to certify a class of all persons or entities that purchased Sealed Air securities during the period from March 27, 2000 through July 30, 2002, both dates inclusive, and were damaged thereby. On July 25, 2007, the Company and Mr. Dunphy filed their memorandum of law in opposition to MPERS's motion for class certification.

On July 25, 2007, the Company and Mr. Dunphy also filed a motion for reconsideration or for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly require dismissal of MPERS's claims.

In an Opinion and Order dated March 12, 2008, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. Subsequently, in an Opinion and Order dated March 14, 2008, the Court denied defendants' motion for reconsideration of their motion to dismiss the complaint premised on the Supreme Court's decisions in Tellabs and Twombly.

On March 27, 2008, the Company and Mr. Dunphy filed a petition for leave to appeal the district court's class certification ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On May 14, 2008, the Third Circuit denied the petition.

On April 27, 2009, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiff to settle the MPERS v. Sealed Air Corporation, et al. case, subject to documentation and Court approval. The agreement provided for payment of US$20 million, which would be substantially funded by the Company's primary and excess insurance carriers.

On May 27, 2009, the Court entered an Order formally closing the action without costs and without prejudice to the right, upon good cause shown within 60 days, to reopen the matter if the settlement were not consummated.

On Aug. 25, 2009, the Court entered an Order granting preliminary approval to the settlement and setting a hearing for final approval of the settlement on Dec. 2, 2009. On Dec. 4, 2009, the Court entered an Order granting final approval of the settlement.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: J. C. Penney Has $53MM A&E Liability at Jan. 30----------------------------------------------------------------J. C. Penney Company, Inc.'s best estimate for its asbestos and environmental liabilities amounted to US$53 million as of Jan. 30, 2010, according to the Company's annual report filed on March 30, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of Jan. 30, 2010, the Company estimated its total potential environmental liabilities to range from US$49 million to US$60 million.

This estimate covered potential liabilities primarily related to underground storage tanks, remediation of environmental conditions involving the Company's former Eckerd drugstore locations and asbestos removal in connection with approved plans to renovate or dispose of its facilities.

Headquartered in Plano, Tex., J. C. Penney Company, Inc. is a department store, catalog, and e-commerce retailer. The Company runs more than 1,090 JCPenney department stores throughout the United States and Puerto Rico.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Penn Millers' A&E Liability at $2.4M at Dec. 31----------------------------------------------------------------Penn Millers Holding Corporation's estimated liability for asbestos and environmental claims is US$2,397,000 at Dec. 31, 2009 and US$2,502,000 at Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual report filed on March 31, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., Penn Millers Holding Corporation provides property and casualty insurance products designed to meet the insurance needs of certain segments of the agricultural industry and the needs of middle market commercial businesses. The Company is licensed in 39 states, but it currently limits its sales of its insurance products to 33 states.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Has $17.7MM Dec. 31 Liability----------------------------------------------------------------American Biltrite Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities were US$17,700,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$13,563,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual report filed on March 31, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's long-term insurance for asbestos-related liabilities were US$17,646,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$13,509,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008.

Headquartered in Wellesley Hills, Mass., American Biltrite Inc.'s tape division manufactures adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes and films used to protect materials during handling and storage, as well as for applications in the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, automotive, and electrical industries.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Faces 1,193 Claims at Dec. 31----------------------------------------------------------------American Biltrite Inc. is a co-defendant with many other manufacturers and distributors of asbestos containing products in 1,193 pending claims involving 1,739 individuals as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with 1,269 claims as of Dec. 31, 2008.

These claims relate to products of the Company's former Tile Division, which the Company contributed to subsidiary Congoleum Corporation in 1993. The claimants allege personal injury or death from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 240 new claims, 25 settlements, and 291 dismissals. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 356 new claims, 13 settlements, and 434 dismissals.

The Company has primary and multiple excess layers of insurance coverage for asbestos claims. The total indemnity costs incurred to settle claims were about US$5.7 million in 2009 and US$867,000 in 2008 all of which were paid by the Company's umbrella insurance carriers in 2009 and by the primary insurance carriers into June 2008 and the umbrella insurance carriers thereafter for 2008, as were the related defense costs.

In June 2008, the Company's primary layer insurance carriers advised the Company that coverage limits under the February 1996 coverage-in-place agreement had exhausted. In August 2008, the Company and its applicable first-layer excess umbrella carriers reached an understanding on the coverage under the Company's applicable first-layer excess umbrella policies (Umbrella Coverage), including defense and indemnity obligations, allocation of claims to specific policies, and other matters. There was no gap in coverage following the exhaustion of the primary layer insurance coverage.

In addition to coverage available under the Umbrella Coverage, the Company has additional excess liability insurance policies that should provide further coverage if and when limits of certain policies within the Umbrella Coverage exhaust.

The estimated range of liability for settlement of current claims pending and claims anticipated to be filed through 2015 was US$17.7 million to US$62 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Headquartered in Wellesley Hills, Mass., American Biltrite Inc.'s tape division manufactures adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes and films used to protect materials during handling and storage, as well as for applications in the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, automotive, and electrical industries.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Potentially Liable for Miller----------------------------------------------------------------American Biltrite Inc. is potentially liable for cleanup at a former sheet vinyl plant in Lisbon Falls, Maine, in which the site is owned by Miler Industries, Inc.

The State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection has put Miller on notice to clean up a dumpsite where there is exposed asbestos from sheet vinyl waste along with other hazardous substances.

In September 2005, a lawsuit was brought by Miller against the Company, which alleged that the Company and one other named defendant were liable for costs to clean up a dumpsite (Parcel A) and a second parcel of land (Parcel B), which is alleged to contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the soil.

Miller was seeking indemnification or contribution from the Company for the clean-up of both parcels of land (together, the "Maine Sites"). The lawsuit was dismissed by the Superior Court of Maine on Feb. 3, 2006 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

In January 2006, the Company was notified by the Maine DEP that it is a PRP as to both Parcel A and Parcel B. Subsequently, Parcel B was named an EPA site.

Prior to the commencement of the lawsuit by Miller, the Company had been investigating and reviewing the condition of Parcel A and its potential liability for its share of any clean-up costs.

The Company said it believes, at this time, that the cost of site investigation, remediation, maintenance and monitoring at the site will be between about US$1.9 million and US$2.5 million. The Company has been advised by Miller that the clean-up for Parcel B has been completed under budget.

The Company has been assessing the potential availability of insurance coverage for such costs. The Company is not at this time able to determine what its potential liability will be with regard to the Maine Sites since the Company has neither accepted nor negotiated its allocable share of the costs with Miller.

Under the Agreement of The Biltrite Corporation (TBC), TBC is liable for 37.5 percent of costs these incurred by the Company for the Maine Sites.

Headquartered in Wellesley Hills, Mass., American Biltrite Inc.'s tape division manufactures adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes and films used to protect materials during handling and storage, as well as for applications in the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, automotive, and electrical industries.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10,329 Actions Pending v. RPM Units at Feb. 28---------------------------------------------------------------RPM International Inc.'s subsidiaries had a total of 10,329 active asbestos cases as of Feb. 28, 2010, compared with a total of 10,281 cases as of Feb. 28, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on April 8, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Certain of the Company's wholly owned subsidiaries, principally Bondex International, Inc. , are defendants in various asbestos-related bodily injury lawsuits filed in various state courts with the vast majority of current claims pending in six states: Texas, Florida, Maryland, Illinois, Mississippi and Ohio.

These cases generally seek unspecified damages for asbestos-related diseases based on alleged exposures to asbestos-containing products previously manufactured by the Company's subsidiaries or others.

The subsidiaries secured dismissals and/or settlements of 644 cases for the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2010, compared with a total of 228 cases dismissed and/or settled for the quarter ended February 28, 2009. The subsidiaries secured dismissals and/or settlements of 1,301 cases for the nine months ended Feb. 28, 2010, compared with a total of 2,253 cases dismissed and/or settled for the nine months ended Feb. 28, 2009.

Of the 2,253 cases that were dismissed in the nine months ended Feb. 28, 2009, 1,420 were non-malignancies or unknown disease cases that had been maintained on an inactive docket in Ohio and were administratively dismissed by the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas during the Company's second fiscal quarter ended Nov. 30, 2008. These claims were dismissed without prejudice and may be re-filed should the claimants involved be able to demonstrate disease in accordance with medical criteria laws established in the State of Ohio.

For the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2010, the subsidiaries made total cash payments of US$19.9 million relating to asbestos cases, which included defense-related payments paid during the quarter of US$7 million, compared to total cash payments of US$19.8 million relating to asbestos cases during the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2009, which included defense-related payments paid during the quarter of US$6.9 million.

For the nine months ended Feb. 28, 2010, the subsidiaries made total cash payments of US$57.4 million relating to asbestos cases, which included defense-related payments of US$22.1 million, compared to total cash payments of US$52.2 million relating to asbestos cases during the nine months ended Feb. 28, 2009, which included defense-related payments of US$19.7 million.

During the third quarter of fiscal 2009, one payment totaling US$3.6 million was made to satisfy an adverse judgment in a previous trial that occurred in calendar 2006 in California. This payment, which included a significant amount of accrued pre-judgment interest as required by California law, was made on Dec. 8, 2008, about two and a half years after the adverse verdict and after all post-trial and appellate remedies had been exhausted.

Excluding defense-related payments, the average payment made to settle or dismiss a case was about US$20,000 for the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2010 and US$56,600 for the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2009, and about US$27,100 for the nine months period ended Feb. 28, 2010 and US$14,400 for the nine month period ended Feb. 28, 2009.

Based in Medina, Ohio, RPM International Inc. is a holding company that owns subsidiaries that produce specialty coatings, sealants, building materials and related services serving both industrial and consumer markets. The Company's industrial products include roofing systems, sealants, corrosion control coatings, flooring coatings and specialty chemicals.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Final Briefs in Bondex Lawsuit Due on April 28---------------------------------------------------------------RPM International Inc. says that defendants' final briefs, in an asbestos case styled Bondex International, Inc. et al. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company et al., are due on April 28, 2010.

During fiscal 2004, certain of the subsidiaries' third-party insurers claimed exhaustion of coverage. On July 3, 2003, certain of the subsidiaries filed the case of Bondex International, Inc. et al. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company et al., Case No. 1:03-cv-1322, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, for declaratory judgment, breach of contract and bad faith against these third-party insurers, challenging their assertion that their policies covering asbestos-related claims have been exhausted.

The coverage litigation involves insurance coverage for claims arising out of alleged exposure to asbestos containing products manufactured by the previous owner of the Bondex tradename before March 1, 1966.

On March 1, 1966, Republic Powdered Metals Inc. (as it was known then), purchased the assets and assumed the liabilities of the previous owner of the Bondex trade name. That previous owner subsequently dissolved and was never a subsidiary of Republic Powdered Metals, Bondex, RPM, Inc. or the Company.

Because of the earlier assumption of liabilities, however, Bondex has historically responded, and must continue to respond, to lawsuits alleging exposure to these asbestos-containing products. The Company discovered that the defendant insurance companies in the coverage litigation had wrongfully used cases alleging exposure to these pre-1966 products to erode their aggregate limits.

This conduct, apparently known by the insurance industry based on discovery conducted to date, was in breach of the insurers' policy language. Two of the defendant insurers have filed counterclaims seeking to recoup certain monies should plaintiffs prevail on their claims.

During the second fiscal quarter ended Nov. 30, 2006, plaintiffs and one of the defendant insurers reached a settlement of US$15 million, the terms of which are confidential by agreement of the parties. The settling defendant was dismissed from the case.

In 2007, plaintiffs had filed motions for partial summary judgment against the defendants and defendants had filed motions for summary judgment against plaintiffs. In addition, plaintiffs had filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim filed by one of the defendants.

On Dec. 1, 2008, the court decided the pending motions for summary judgment and dismissal. The court denied the plaintiffs' motions for partial summary judgment and granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment against plaintiffs on a narrow ground. The court also granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss one defendant's amended counterclaim.

In light of its summary judgment rulings, the court entered judgment as a matter of law on all remaining claims and counterclaims, including the counterclaim filed by another defendant, and dismissed the action. The court also dismissed certain remaining motions as moot.

Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and will continue to aggressively pursue their claims on appeal. Certain defendants have filed cross-appeals.

On Dec. 17, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a briefing schedule. Plaintiffs' first brief on appeal was filed on Jan. 26, 2010. On Feb. 2, 2010, the Ohio Manufacturers' Association filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs.

Defendants moved for an extension of time to file their briefs, which was granted by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. As a result, defendants' briefs were filed on March 31, 2010.

Based in Medina, Ohio, RPM International Inc. is a holding company that owns subsidiaries that produce specialty coatings, sealants, building materials and related services serving both industrial and consumer markets. The Company's industrial products include roofing systems, sealants, corrosion control coatings, flooring coatings and specialty chemicals.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: RPM Records $357.9M Feb. 28 Long-Term Liability----------------------------------------------------------------RPM International, Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities were US$357,891,000 during the nine months ended Feb. 28, 2010, compared with US$442,549,000 during the nine months ended Feb. 28, 2009, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed on April 8, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities were US$75 million during the nine months ended Feb. 28, 2010, compared with US$65 million during the nine months ended Feb. 28, 2009.

Through nine months, asbestos-related costs were US$57.4 million, compared to US$52.2 million in the first nine months of fiscal 2009. The total asbestos liability balance was US$432.9 million at February 28, 2010.

During the third quarter, the Company paid US$19.9 million in pre-tax asbestos-related indemnity and defense costs, compared to the US$19.8 million paid in the year-ago third quarter.

Based in Medina, Ohio, RPM International Inc. is a holding company that owns subsidiaries that produce specialty coatings, sealants, building materials and related services serving both industrial and consumer markets. The Company's industrial products include roofing systems, sealants, corrosion control coatings, flooring coatings and specialty chemicals.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Progress in Scott v. Chase Since Feb. 2010--------------------------------------------------------------Chase Corporation says that, as of February 2010, there have been no new developments in Marie Lou Scott's asbestos case as this Ohio lawsuit has been inactive with respect to the Company.

The Company is one of over 100 defendants in a personal injury lawsuit, pending in Ohio, which alleges personal injury from exposure to asbestos contained in certain Chase products.

The case is captioned Marie Lou Scott, Executrix of the Estate of James T. Scott v. A-Best Products, et al., No. 312901 in the Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

The plaintiff in the case issued discovery requests to the Company in August 2005, to which the Company timely responded in September 2005.

The trial had initially been scheduled to begin on April 30, 2007. However, that date had been postponed and no new trial date has been set.

Based in Bridgewater, Mass., Chase Corporation makes and sells specialty tapes, coatings, laminates, and sealants for a diversity of applications, from wire and cable to construction and electronics.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jansen Action v. Chase Still in Discovery Phase---------------------------------------------------------------- Chase Corporation says that parties in an asbestos cased filed by Lois Jansen are currently engaged in discovery, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on April 9, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company was named as one of the defendants in a complaint filed on June 25, 2009, in a lawsuit captioned Lois Jansen, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Thomas Jansen v. Beazer East, Inc., et al., No: 09-CV-6248 in the Milwaukee County (Wisconsin) Circuit Court.

The plaintiff alleges that her husband suffered and died from malignant mesothelioma resulting from exposure to asbestos in his workplace. The plaintiff has sued seven alleged manufacturers or distributors of asbestos-containing products, including Royston Laboratories (formerly an independent company and now a division of the Company).

The Company has filed an answer to the claim denying the material allegations in the complaint.

Based in Bridgewater, Mass., Chase Corporation makes and sells specialty tapes, coatings, laminates, and sealants for a diversity of applications, from wire and cable to construction and electronics.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: DryShips Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Actions----------------------------------------------------------------DryShips Inc., may be, from time to time, involved in various litigation matters, which may include contract disputes, personal injury claims, environmental claims or proceedings, asbestos and other toxic tort claims, employment matters, governmental claims for taxes or duties.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed on April 9, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Athens, Greece, DryShips Inc.'s vessels carry commodities like coal, iron ore, and grain, as well as bauxite, fertilizers, and steel products. The fleet, which is made up mainly of Panamax vessels but also includes Capesize and Supramax units, has an overall capacity of more than 3.1 million deadweight tons (DWT).

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Four Hilco Exposure Claims Remain After Dec. 31----------------------------------------------------------------Colonial Commercial Corp. says that, subsequent to Dec. 31, 2009, six plaintiffs in asbestos cases filed against Hilco, Inc. have had their actions dismissed and one plaintiff filed an action, which results in four remaining plaintiffs in these lawsuits.

The Company understands that Hilco and many other companies have been sued in the Superior Court of New Jersey (Middlesex County) by plaintiffs filing lawsuits alleging injury due to asbestos. As of Dec. 31, 2009, there exist nine plaintiffs in these lawsuits relating to alleged sales of asbestos products, or products containing asbestos, by Hilco.

The Company never sold any asbestos related products.

Of the existing plaintiffs as of Dec. 31, 2009, two filed actions in 2009, three filed actions in 2007, one filed an action in 2006, one filed an action in 2005, and two filed actions in 2004.

There are 201 other plaintiffs that have had their actions dismissed and 15 other plaintiffs that have settled as of Dec. 31, 2009 for a total of US$3,360,500. There has been no judgment against Hilco.

Headquartered in Hawthorne, N.J., Colonial Commercial Corp. distributes heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment (HVAC), parts and accessories, climate control systems, appliances, and plumbing and electrical fixtures and supplies, primarily in New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and portions of eastern Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Vermont.

Universal was named by 36 plaintiffs. Of these, 11 filed actions in 2007, six filed actions in 2006, 11 filed actions in 2005, five filed actions in 2001, one filed an action in 2000, and two filed actions in 1999.

Thirty plaintiffs naming Universal have had their actions dismissed and, of the total US$3,360,500 of settled actions, three plaintiffs naming Universal have settled for US$27,500. No money was paid by Universal in connection with any settlement.

Headquartered in Hawthorne, N.J., Colonial Commercial Corp. distributes heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment (HVAC), parts and accessories, climate control systems, appliances, and plumbing and electrical fixtures and supplies, primarily in New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and portions of eastern Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Vermont.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Kaanapali, D/C---------------------------------------------------------------Kaanapali Land, LLC, as successor by merger to other entities, and its subsidiary, D/C Distribution Corporation, are still defendants in personal injury actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos.

While there are only a few such cases that name the Company, there are a substantial number of cases that are pending against D/C on the U.S. mainland (primarily in California). Cases against the Company are allegedly based on its prior business operations in Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on the sale of asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business operations primarily in California.

On Feb. 15, 2005, D/C was served with a lawsuit entitled American & Foreign Insurance Company v. D/C Distribution and Amfac Corporation, Case No. 04433669 filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, Central Justice Center. No other purported party was served.

In the eight-count complaint for declaratory relief, reimbursement and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and for such other relief as the court might grant, plaintiff alleged that it is an insurance company to whom D/C tendered for defense and indemnity various personal injury lawsuits allegedly based on exposure to asbestos containing products. Plaintiff alleged that because none of the parties have been able to produce a copy of the policy or policies in question, a judicial determination of the material terms of the missing policy or policies is needed.

Plaintiff sought a declaration: of the material terms, rights, and obligations of the parties under the terms of the policy or policies; that the policies were exhausted; that plaintiff is not obligated to reimburse D/C for its attorneys' fees in that the amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by D/C have been incurred unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled to recoupment and reimbursement of some or all of the amounts it has paid for defense and/or indemnity; and that D/C has breached its obligation of cooperation with plaintiff. D/C filed an answer and an amended cross-claim.

In order to fund such action and its other ongoing obligations while such lawsuit continued, D/C entered into a Loan Agreement and Security Agreement with the Company in August 2006, whereby the Company provided certain advances against a promissory note delivered by D/C in return for a security interest in any D/C insurance policy at issue in this lawsuit. In June 2007, the parties settled this lawsuit with payment by plaintiffs in the amount of US$1.6 million.

Because D/C was substantially without assets and was unable to obtain additional sources of capital to satisfy its liabilities, D/C filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Illinois, its voluntary petition for liquidation under Chapter 7 of Title 11, U.S. Bankruptcy Code during July 2007, Case No. 07-12776. The deadline for filing proofs of claims against D/C with the bankruptcy court passed in October 2008.

Prior to the deadline, the Company Land filed claims that aggregated about US$$26.8 million relating to both secured and unsecured intercompany debts owed by D/C to the Company. In addition, a personal injury law firm based in San Francisco that represents clients with asbestos-related claims, filed proofs of claim on behalf of about 700 claimants.

Headquartered in Chicago, Kaanapali Land, LLC operates in two primary business segments: (i) Property and (ii) Agriculture. The Company operates through a number of subsidiaries, each of which is owned directly or indirectly by the Company.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PREIT Records $10M-$20M Coverage for A&E Claims----------------------------------------------------------------Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust has insurance coverage for certain asbestos and environmental claims up to US$10 million per occurrence and up to US$20 million in the aggregate.

The Company is aware of certain environmental matters at some of its properties, including ground water contamination and the presence of asbestos containing materials. The Company has, in the past, performed remediation of such environmental matters, and is not aware of any significant remaining potential liability relating to these environmental matters.

The Company may be required in the future to perform testing relating to these matters.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust has a primary investment focus on retail shopping malls and strip and power centers located in the eastern half of the United States, primarily in the Mid-Atlantic region. Its portfolio consists of 54 properties in 13 states, including 38 shopping malls, 13 strip and power centers and three properties under development.

The Hubbards claim the 74 defendant corporations are responsible for Mr. Hubbard's mesothelioma, of which he was diagnosed in January 2010. They seek a trial by jury to resolve all issues involved in their asbestos-related case.

The Company was the lowest of three proposals the city received for the work, at US$29,500. Other bids came from Contracting Specialties Inc. of Omaha for US$56,130 and Great Plains Asbestos Control of Kearney for US$38,816.

The McCook City Council approved awarding the bid at the regular council meeting on April 12, 2010.

The structure, at the corner of B Street and Norris Avenue, is slated for demolition and removing asbestos from the building is required before that can begin.

The asbestos removal, as well as the demolition, will be paid for with funds from the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, Community Development Block Grant the city was awarded.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Local Indicted on False Inspection Reports----------------------------------------------------------------Saverio Todaro, of Queens, N.Y., pleaded guilty to falsifying lead and asbestos inspection reports for hundreds of structures around New York City., the Queens Tribune Online reports.

Mr. Todaro, who was a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-certified lead risk assessor and asbestos air sampling technician, is the first to be charged with, and plead guilty to, violations of the EPA's Toxic Substances Control Act.

Dept. of Investigation Commissioner Rose Gill Hearn, said, "Mr. Todaro was a one-man paper mill churning out phony lead and asbestos reports. He cared nothing for public safety and profited by duping government regulators."

Mr. Todaro pleaded guilty to 11 charges, including false statements, mail fraud and violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act. He faces a sentence that could include up to 20 years in prison and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.

The 67-year-old Mr. Todaro, of Richmond Hill, N.Y., ran SAF Environmental Corp., which offered inspection and testing services. But since 2001, many of his reports documented inspections that were never performed.

After City officials found dubious conditions and possible lead paint violations in residences, Mr. Todaro swooped in to perform testing. In many cases, instead of actually sending out samples to be tested, he forged lab reports giving the premises a clean bill of health. He then billed many of the customers for services never performed. He often also submitted the false reports to City agencies.

In a statement before the court, Mr. Todaro admitted guilt and said, "I knew that my actions were wrong and unlawful, and I am very sorry for what I did."

Mr. Todaro's violations also reached into asbestos mitigation, where he submitted reports after the City revoked his inspector's license in February 2004, backdating his reports to before that date. He then continued to send customers invoices for his work.

The same behavior applies for Mr. Todaro's handling of hundreds of asbestos air monitoring reports. He offered up the results to many tests that never occurred, submitting bogus clearances for many sites while billing the customers for services never performed.

Some of his funds came out of City coffers, as part of his work came from HPD's programs.

On Oct 28, 2009, Mr. Keeling was diagnosed with lunch cancer, according to the complaint. He claims he was exposed to asbestos products of the defendants while working at various job sites over many years.

On Oct. 9, 2008, Mr. Messer was diagnosed with asbestosis, according to the complaint. The Messers claim the asbestosis was caused by asbestos dust that was in products and/or buildings Mr. Messer worked in during his career as a laborer, welder and construction worker.

Mr. Messer claims he does smoke one pack of cigarettes per day and has since 1956. The Messers seek a trial by jury to resolve all issues in the asbestos-related case.

The Gills seek a jury trial to resolve all issues in their asbestos-related case. Victoria Antion, Esq., and Cindy J. Kiblinger, Esq., represent the Gills.

Case No. 10-C-522 has been assigned to a visiting judge.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belmont Local Fined $4.4T for Disposal Breaches----------------------------------------------------------------Daniel Carey, a resident of Belmont, Wis., paid nearly US$4,400 in penalties for the illegal burning of asbestos and waste, THonline.com reports.

The 26-year-old Mr. Carey was cited in Lafayette County Circuit Court after an investigation by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

The case involves a business structure torn down in Belmont one year ago and the burning of waste from the demolition.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duffy Action v. Ill. Railroad Filed on March 31----------------------------------------------------------------Walter V. Duffy, on March 31, 2010, filed an asbestos lawsuit against Illinois Central Railroad Company in St. Clair County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

Mr. Duffy worked for the Railroad from 1952 until 1995 as a fireman and engineer, according to the complaint.

Throughout his work in and around the shops, tracks, roundhouses and yards in Illinois, Mr. Duffy was exposed to asbestos dust or fibers, the suit states. Because of this exposure, he claims he has contracted an asbestos-related disease, has suffered great pain, extreme nervousness and mental anguish and believes his illness is permanent in nature.

In his three-count suit, Mr. Duffy seeks a judgment in excess of US$50,000, plus costs and other relief the court deems appropriate.

Mr. Duffy is represented by William P. Gavin, Esq., of the Gavin Law Firm in Belleville, Ill., by Kip A. Harbison, Esq., of Glasser and Glasser in Norfolk and by Willard J. Moody Jr., Esq., of Moody, Strople, Kloeppel and Higginbotham in Portsmouth in Case No. 10-L-150.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 240 Main Street to Pay $50T for Disposal Breach----------------------------------------------------------------240 Main Street Properties Inc., on April 12, 2010, was fined a total of US$50,000 in Worcester Superior Court for Massachusetts State Clean Air Act violations related to the removal of asbestos from a four-story building at 240 Main St, NEWStelegram.com reports.

Janet E. Krock, president, treasurer and director of 240 Main Street Properties, entered guilty pleas on behalf of the corporation to charges of violating the Clean Air Act in 2007 and 2008 by failing to file notices of asbestos removal with the state and by improperly disposing of asbestos waste.

Judge James R. Lemire imposed fines totaling US$50,000 against the corporation as recommended by Assistant Attorney General Andrew A. Rainer and the corporation's lawyer, Thomas J. Butters, under a plea agreement.

A warrant was issued for the arrest of Jonathan Gabriel, a contractor who prosecutors said was hired in September 2007 by 240 Main Street Properties to do demolition work in the building, after he failed to appear in court for arraignment. Mr. Gabriel and 240 Main Street Properties were each indicted on March 2010 on two counts of violating the Clean Air Act.

The state Department of Environmental Protection ordered a halt to demolition work in the long-vacant building in August 2008 after finding that workers employed by Mr. Gabriel, who was doing business as Hammertime Construction, had not been given proper training in the removal of asbestos or been provided with protective equipment.

The DEP investigation also revealed that materials in the building containing asbestos were not wet down or disposed of in the proper sealed containers and that no arrangements were made to have a licensed contractor test the air for asbestos after the demolition work was completed.

240 Main Street Properties Inc. was identified by prosecutors as the owner/operator of 240 Main St., a commercial property also known as the Old State Mutual Building and listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

On April 12, 2010, a summons to appear for arraignment was sent to Mr. Gabriel at 11 Pond View Way, Northboro, according to court records.

The Company's gross provision for A&E claims and ALAE amounted to US$750,972,000 at Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$943,970,000 at Dec. 31, 2008.

As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Company had net loss reserves of US$588.4 million for asbestos-related claims and US$79.2 million for environmental pollution-related claims.

During 2009, excluding the impact of loss reserves acquired during the year, the Company's reserves for A&E liabilities decreased by US$210 million on a gross basis and by US$194.2 million on a net basis.

Headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda, Enstar Group Limited acquires and manages insurance and reinsurance companies in run-off and portfolios of insurance and reinsurance business in run-off, and to provide management, consulting and other services to the insurance and reinsurance industry.

The Company's gross A&E-related unpaid latent losses and ALAE were US$458.9 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$523.4 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Net latent losses incurred in 2009 are net of an insurance recovery of US$13.8 million associated with an asbestos lawsuit which the Company settled in 2008. Excluding this recovery, net latent losses incurred of US$20.5 million were primarily attributable to increasing claim values and rising legal costs associated with the asbestos liabilities of one policyholder.

The Company had 356 asbestos policyholders open at Dec. 31, 2009, compared with 337 policyholder open at Dec. 31, 2008.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: United America Reserves $51.17M for Losses, LAE----------------------------------------------------------------United America Indemnity, Ltd.'s gross reserves for asbestos and environmental losses and loss adjustment expenses amounted to US$51,170,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$60,601,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's net reserves for A&E losses and LAE amounted to US$31,677,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$36,926,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Included in net unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses were IBNR (incurred but not reported) reserves of US$21.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, US$31.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2008, and US$21.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, and case reserves of about US$10.1 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, US$5.2 million as of Dec. 31, 2008, and US$8.7 million as of Dec. 31, 2007 for known A&E-related claims.

In 2009, one of the Company's insurance companies was dismissed from a lawsuit seeking coverage from it and other unrelated insurance companies. The suit involved issues related to about 3,900 existing asbestos related bodily injury claims and future claims. The dismissal was the result of a settlement of a disputed claim related to accident year 1984.

Headquartered in George Town, Cayman Islands, United America Indemnity, Ltd., a specialty property and casualty insurer, provides its insurance products across a full distribution network - binding authority, program, brokerage, and reinsurance. The Company manages the distribution of these products in two segments: (a) Insurance Operations and (b) Reinsurance Operations.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ING Groep Records EUR42M Balance for A&E Claims----------------------------------------------------------------ING Groep N.V. had an outstanding balance of EUR42 million as at Dec. 31, 2009 (2008: EUR52 million) relating to environmental and asbestos claims of the insurance operations, according to the Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed on March 18, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In establishing the liability for unpaid claims and claims adjustment expenses related to asbestos related illness and toxic waste clean-up, the management considers facts currently known and current legislation and coverage litigation.

Headquartered in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, ING Groep N.V.'s operations are focused on its home Benelux market, as well as the rest of Europe, Asia/Pacific, and North America. Key products include life and non-life insurance, pensions, and retirement services. The Company's banking operations include wholesale and retail banking and mortgage lending.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABB Has $25Mil Non-Current Liability at Dec. 31----------------------------------------------------------------ABB Ltd's non-current liabilities amounted to US$25 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$50 million as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed on March 19, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's total non-current asbestos liabilities were US$25 million as of Sept. 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 13, 2009)

The Company's asbestos provisions and other current liabilities amounted to US$28 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$4 million as of Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's Combustion Engineering, Inc. subsidiary (CE) was a co-defendant in a large number of lawsuits claiming damage for personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos. A smaller number of claims were also brought against the Company's former Lummus subsidiary as well as against other entities of the Company.

Separate plans of reorganization for CE and Lummus, as amended, were filed under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The CE plan of reorganization and the Lummus plan of reorganization (collectively, the Plans) became effective on April 21, 2006 and Aug. 31, 2006, respectively.

Included in the asbestos provisions are two additional payments of US$25 million each to the CE Asbestos PI Trust for which the Company is liable on a contingent basis. One additional payment of US$25 million is payable in 2010 or 2011 if the Company attains an earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) margin of nine percent for 2009 or 14 percent in 2010.

The other payment of US$25 million is payable in 2011 if the Company attains an EBIT margin of 9.5 percent in 2010. During 2008, the Company recorded both of these contingent payment obligations as, based on forecasted financial results, it expected to achieve the target EBIT margins in 2009 and 2010.

If the Company is found by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court (the Bankruptcy Court) to have defaulted on its asbestos payment obligations, the CE Asbestos PI Trust may petition the Bankruptcy Court to terminate the CE channeling injunction and the protections afforded by that injunction to the Company and other entities of the Company, as well as certain other entities, including Alstom SA.

Headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland, ABB Ltd provides power and automation technologies to a broad base of utility, industrial, and commercial customers. Power products include transmission and distribution components, and turnkey substation systems. Automation technologies are used to monitor and control equipment and processes in industrial plants and utilities.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Expends $300,000 for Cleanup at Feb. 28---------------------------------------------------------------United Refining Company expended US$300,000 for asbestos abatement during the six months ended Feb. 28, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Feb. 14, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Warren, Pa., United Refining Company is a petroleum refiner and marketer in its primary market area of Western New York and Northwestern Pennsylvania. Operations are organized into two business segments: wholesale and retail.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aranda Claim v. 12 Firms Filed April 6 in Texas----------------------------------------------------------------Augustine Aranda and Patsy Jean Aranda, on April 6, 2010, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 12 defendant corporations in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Mr. Aranda claims he developed a malignant asbestos-related disease after working around asbestos products during the course of his work as an electrician, repairman and laborer.

Mr. Aranda has already sued or settled for a non-malignant asbestos-related disease and now seeks compensation for a different malignant asbestos-related disease, according to his complaint.

Mr. Aranda claims he became exposed to asbestos fibers during his work at the Gulfport Shipyard in Port Arthur from 1965 until 1967 and at the Atlantic Richfield Refinery from 1967 until 1979.

The Arandas seek actual and exemplary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest at the legal rate and other relief to which they may be entitled.

Bryan O. Blevins Jr., Esq., and Aaryn K. Giblin, Esq., of Provost and Umphrey Law Firm in Beaumont will be representing the Arandas.

Case No. B186-460 has been assigned to Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th District Court.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hardick Widow Wins $2.99M in Compensation Case---------------------------------------------------------------Robert Hardick's widow, Diane Hardick, on April 13, 2010, was awarded a US$2.99 million asbestos-related award for the wrongful death of her husband, Robert Hardick, a former U.S. Navy petty officer who was exposed on Navy ships between the 1950s and the 1970s, the Daily Press reports.

After a 12-day trial in Newport News Circuit Court, a seven-member jury sided with Mrs. Hardick. Mr. Hardick died of mesothelioma in March 2009.

Hardick, 69, of Hopkinsville, Ky., was a father of four.

After his Navy career, Mr. Hardick, who died at the age of 69, became a successful businessman - owning a company that brokered contracts between large companies and the U.S. military.

Mr. Hardick's death came decades after he breathed in asbestos fibers at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard and while serving on the USS Newport News, a cruiser built at Newport News Shipbuilding.

The jury's verdict of US$5.98 million will be divided in payment between two companies - John Crane Inc. and Garlock Sealing Technologies.

However, Garlock, of Palmyra, N.Y., settled out of court for an undisclosed amount, meaning only John Crane, of Morton Grove, Ill., is on the hook to pay its half.

In arriving at the US$5.98 million verdict, the jury awarded US$2 million for pain and suffering; US$1.15 million for the loss suffered Mrs. Hardick; US$2.5 million for the loss of Mr. Hardick's future income; and US$327,000 in medical and funeral expenses.

The sides agreed to the lost income portion of the verdict before trial - that should the jury side in favor of Mrs. Hardick; that Mr. Hardick's death translated into US$2.5 million in lost income.

Of the US$2.99 million portion of the verdict to be borne by Crane, Hardick's family will get US$1.99 million. Patten, Wornom, Hatten & Diamonstein will evenly split the remainder - or US$995,000 - with the Louisville, Ky., law firm that initiated the suit.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Walker Case v. 61 Firms Filed March 18 in W.Va.----------------------------------------------------------------An asbestos-related lawsuit on behalf of Nelson Eugene Walker was filed against 61 defendant corporations on March 18, 2010 in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

Debra L. Church and Carol J. Boyd are the co-executrixes of the Estate of Mr. Walker, according to the complaint. Mr. Walker was diagnosed with lung cancer on July 31, 2009, and died on Nov. 23, 2009.

Ms. Church and Ms. Boyd claim Mr. Walker was exposed to asbestos products of the defendants while working at various job sites over many years.

Ms. Church and Ms. Boyd seek a trial by jury to resolve all issues in the asbestos-related case. They are being represented by Victoria Antion, Esq., and Cindy J. Kiblinger, Esq.

Mr. McDade was diagnosed with lung cancer in November 2006 and died on March 22, 2008, according to the complaint.

Ms. Daily claims Mr. McDade was exposed to asbestos products of the defendants while working at various job sites in West Virginia and Ohio over many years.

Ms. Daily seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues in the asbestos-related case. She is being represented by Victoria Antion, Esq., and Cindy J. Kiblinger, Esq.

Case No. 10-C-523 has been assigned to a visiting judge.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Jury Awards $30M in Three Exposure Lawsuits----------------------------------------------------------------A jury in Philadelphia awarded a total of US$30 million to three separate plaintiffs in cases were tried together in March 2010, LAW.com reports.

However, the plaintiffs' attorneys say their clients will see a fraction of that money because of prior settlements with the bulk of the defendants.

The reverse bifurcated trials were held together before Senior Judge Esther R. Sylvester, with the eight-member jury coming down with the damages on March 9, 2010 and a finding of liability on March 23, 2010.

In Nelson v. Crane Co., the jury awarded US$14.5 million to Darlene Nelson as the executrix of the estate of her husband, James Nelson, who died at the age of 54 from mesothelioma.

The jurors then found all of the 11 defendants listed on the verdict sheet liable for the damages. However, three defendants remained in the case - Crane Co., Hobart and Lincoln. The companies' shares of the verdict equal US$3.95 million.

In Bell v. Crane Co., the jury awarded US$3.5 million to Larry Bell II, the administrator of the estate of Larry Bell, who died at the age of 62 from mesothelioma. The jurors then found the 20 defendants listed on the verdict sheet liable.

Crane Co. remained in the case and will be responsible for one-twentieth of the verdict, or US$175,000.

In VanTassel v. Alfa Laval Inc., the jurors awarded the estate of Richard VanTassel US$12 million and then found the 15 defendants listed on the verdict sheet liable for the damages.

On Dec. 18, 2008, Mr. Wolgamott filed a civil action against Metalclad Insulation Corporation. He alleged that he suffers from asbestosis and asbestos related pleural disease as a result of being exposed to asbestos. This alleged exposure included exposure to asbestos fibers from insulation used in the construction of U.S. Navy ships on which Mr. Wolgamott formerly worked as a shipfitter and welder.

The insulation with asbestos that allegedly led to Mr. Wolgamott's asbestosis and asbestos related pleural disease was provided by Metalclad.

On Dec. 2, 2009, Metalclad removed the instant action to the Northern District of California. On Dec. 21, 2009, the case was assigned to this Court. On Dec. 29, 2009, Mr. Wolgamott filed a Motion to Remand that was scheduled for hearing on April 27, 2010. On Jan. 19, 2010, Mr. Wolgamott filed an Affidavit of Prejudice and Certificate of Counsel, requesting that this Court be disqualified and this action be assigned to another judge.

On June 6, 2006, Mrs. Schaffner commenced this Asbestos Mass Tort action alleging that Mr. Schaffner developed mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos. On July 10, 2006, Mr. Schaffner died. On Aug. 2, 2006, Mrs. Schaffner opened the Estate of Mr. Schaffner and substituted the Estate as a party.

On April 16, 2008 and April 22, 2008, Crane and Kentile individually moved for summary judgment. On May 2, 2008, Mrs. Schaffner filed her answer to Defendants' motions for summary judgment.

On May 8, 2008, Defendants filed their reply briefs in support of their motions for summary judgment. On May 12, 2008, Mrs. Schaffner filed her sur-reply to Defendants' motions. On May 29, 2008, after review of the motions and responses, this Court granted Defendants' motions and dismissed with prejudice all claims against Defendants.

On June 25, 2008, Mrs. Schaffner filed a Notice of Appeal of the grants of summary judgment. On June 30, 2008, the Court ordered Mrs. Schaffner to file a Concise Statement of [Errors] Complained of on Appeal. On July 11, 2008, in response to this Court's order, Mrs. Schaffner filed a Statement of [Errors] Complained of on appeal.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.